Yesterday, the Supreme Court delivered its first verdict in a series of legal challenges that have been made against the Aadhaar project.[1]  In the present matter, the court was examining whether a provision of the Finance Act, 2017 that made Aadhaar mandatory for filing of income tax returns and applying for Permanent Account Number (PAN) cards was constitutionally valid.  The court has upheld the validity of this provision, subject to a few qualifications.  Below, we discuss the background of the Aadhaar project, why the courts have stepped in to examine its legality, and some aspects of the recent judgement.

What is Aadhaar about, and how is it being used?

Earlier, various identity proofs were required for access to governments benefits, subsidies and services, such as a ration card, driving license or voter id.  However, as these proofs could be easily duplicated or forged, there was leakage of benefits and subsidies to ineligible beneficiaries.  The Aadhaar project was initiated in 2009 to address these problems.  It was envisaged as a biometric-based unique identity number that could help identify eligible persons.  It was thought to be a more reliable identity proof, because it sought to authenticate a person’s identity based on their unique biometrics, like fingerprints and iris scans.1

In 2016, Parliament enacted the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 to provide legislative backing to the project.  This Act allowed Aadhaar to be used for authentication purposes by the central and state government, as well as by private bodies and persons.[2]

Under its provisions, government has been issuing various notifications making Aadhaar mandatory for government projects, such as LPG subsidies and Mid-Day Meal scheme.[3]  In addition, in 2017, Parliament passed the Finance Act to amend the Income Tax Act, 1961, and made Aadhaar mandatory for filing of income tax returns, and applying for PAN.[4]

What is the information collected under Aadhaar?

To obtain an Aadhaar number, a person is required to submit their : (i) biometric information (photograph, 10 fingerprints, scans of both irises), and (ii) demographic information (name, date of birth, gender, residential address) to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).[5]  The Aadhaar number, the demographic and biometric information (called identity information) is together stored in the Central Identities Data Repository.  In addition, every time a person’s identity is authenticated using Aadhaar, information related to the authentication request is recorded as well.

How is this information protected?

While India does not have a comprehensive law on privacy and data security, the Aadhaar Act, 2016 has some protections.  For example, it prohibits UIDAI and its officers from sharing a person’s identity information and authentication records with anyone.  It also forbids a person authenticating another person’s identity from collecting or using their information without their consent.  Other protections include prohibitions against publicly displaying a person’s Aadhaar number and sharing of a person’s fingerprints and iris scans with anyone.  Note that there are penalties prescribed for violation of these provisions as well.[6]

However, the Act permits information be disclosed in the interest of national security and on the order of a court.[7]

The UIDAI authority has been made responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Aadhaar database, and for laying down the security protocols for its protection.[8]

Why did the courts step in?

Even as Aadhaar is being rolled out, with about 111 crore of the 125 crore population already on the database, there are several important constitutional and legal questions around the unique identity project.[9][10]  While yesterday’s judgement addresses one of these issues, other questions remain unresolved.  A description of the key legal questions is provided below.

Privacy:  It has been argued that the collection of identity data without adequate safeguards interferes with the fundamental right to privacy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.  Article 21 guarantees right to life and personal liberty.  In August 2015, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court passed an order stating that a larger bench must be formed to decide the questions of: (i) whether right to privacy is a fundamental right, and (ii) whether Aadhaar violates this right.[11]  However, the court has not set up a larger bench to hear these petitions till June 2017.[12]

Mandatory vs voluntary:  Another question before the court is whether Aadhaar can be made mandatory for those government benefits and services, that citizens are entitled to under law.  In 2015, the Supreme Court passed some interim orders stating that: (i) Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for providing citizens with benefits and entitlements, and (ii) it can only be used for seven schemes including PDS distribution of foodgrains and kerosene, LPG distribution scheme, MGNREGA wage payments, and Prime Minister’s Jan Dhan Yojana.11

Subsequently, Parliament enacted the Aadhaar Act, 2016, and the government has been issuing notifications under it to make Aadhaar mandatory for various schemes.3  In light of this, more petitions have been filed challenging these notifications.[13]  Judgements on these petitions are awaited as well.

Linking Aadhaar with PAN:  In 2017, after Parliament made Aadhaar mandatory for filing of tax returns and applying for PAN under the Income Tax Act, 1961, fresh petitions were filed in the Supreme Court.  The new provision stated that if a person failed to link their PAN with the Aadhaar number by a date notified by the central government, their PAN will be invalidated.  The government said this will decrease the problem of multiple PAN cards obtained under fictitious names and consequent tax fraud and tax evasion, because Aadhaar will ensure proper identification.1,[14]  However, the petitioners argued that this may interfere with a person’s fundamental rights, such as their right to practice any profession, trade or business and right to equality.  It is this question that has been addressed in the new judgement.1

Money Bill:  The fourth question is related to the manner in which the Aadhaar Act, 2016 was passed by Parliament.  The Act was passed as a Money Bill.  A Money Bill only needs to be passed by Lok Sabha, while Rajya Sabha may make non-binding recommendations on it.  In case of the Aadhaar Act, Rajya Sabha made some recommendations that were rejected by Lok Sabha.  It has been argued before the courts that the Aadhaar Act does not qualify as a Money Bill because it contains provisions unrelated to government taxation and expenditure.13,[15]

What has the judgement held?

The Supreme Court has held that the new provision of the Income Tax Act that makes Aadhaar mandatory for income tax assessees is not in violation of the fundamental right to equality, or the fundamental right to practice one’s profession or trade.  The petitioners had argued that the new provision discriminates between individual and non-individual assessees (e.g. companies or firms), because it only seeks to address tax fraud by individuals.  They had also contended that Aadhaar could not address the problem of tax fraud through duplicate PANs because there was evidence to show that people had multiple Aadhaar numbers as well.  The court rejected these arguments (as well as arguments related to freedom to carry on business), stating that Aadhaar is perceived as the best method of eliminating duplicate PANs, and therefore there is reasonable rationale behind linking the PAN database with Aadhaar.1

The court decided not to examine questions related to human dignity and privacy, on the ground that issues affecting Article 21 will be examined by a larger bench to be set up by the court.  However, it granted relief to people, who have not enrolled for Aadhaar, by stating that their PAN cards cannot be invalidated till the time when the matter is finally decided by such a bench.

This, in effect, means that the debate around constitutionality and legality of the Aadhaar project will remain ongoing till a judgement is finally pronounced on whether Aadhaar is in violation of right to privacy under Article 21.

[1] Binoy Viswam vs Union of India, Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 247 of 2017, http://www.sci.gov.in/pdf/jud/wc24717_Sign.pdf.

[2] Sections 7, 8 and 57, Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

[3] Unstarred Question No. 4126, Lok Sabha, March 27, 2017; Unstarred Question No. 1209, Lok Sabha, February 9, 2017; S.O. 371 (E), Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, February 8, 2017, http://dfpd.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/Magazine/Document/1_211_1_aadhaar-notification.pdf; S.O. 369 (E), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, February 8, 2017, http://www.egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2017/174076.pdf.

[4] The Finance Bill, 2017, http://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-finance-bill-2017-4681/.

[5] Regulations 3 and 4, Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.

[6] Sections 28-47, Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

[7] Section 33, Section 23, Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

[8] Section 23, Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

[9] “UIDAI achieves 111 crore mark on Aadhaar generation; Unique identity covers over 99 percent adult residents of India”, Press Information Bureau, January 27, 2017.

[10] Justice K. Puttaswamy (Retd) and Another vs Union of India and Others, Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012; Jairam Ramesh vs Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 231 of 2016; S.G. Vombatkere and Another vs Union of India and Others, Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Civil) 797/ 2016; “Aadhaar: What are the pending cases before the Supreme Court”, Indian Express, May 31, 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/aadhaar-what-are-the-pending-cases-before-the-supreme-court/.

[11] Justice K. Puttaswamy (Retd) and Another vs Union of India and Others, Supreme Court, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012, September 23, 2013, August 11, 2015, October 15, 2015.

[12] “The Aadhaar/ PAN Judgement”, Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy Blog, https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2017/06/09/the-aadhaarpan-judgment/.

[13] “Aadhaar: What are the pending cases before the Supreme Court”, Indian Express, May 31, 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/aadhaar-what-are-the-pending-cases-before-the-supreme-court/.

[14] Uncorrected Lok Sabha Debates, March 22, 2017, Pg. 240, http://164.100.47.193/newdebate/16/11/22032017/Fullday.pdf.

Since March, 2020, there has been a consistent rise in the number of COVID-19 cases in India.  As of May 18, 2020, there were 96,169 confirmed cases of the infectious disease, of which 3,029 persons died.  To contain the spread of COVID-19 in India, the central government imposed a nation-wide lockdown on March 24 till April 14, now extended till May 31.  To ensure continued supply of agriculture produce during the lockdown and control the spread of the disease, some states have amended their respective Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) laws.  This blog explains the manner in which agriculture marketing is regulated in India, steps taken by the centre for the agriculture sector during the COVID-19 crisis, and the recent amendments in the APMC laws that are being announced by various states. 

How is agriculture marketing regulated in India?

Agriculture falls under the State List of the Constitution.  Agriculture marketing in most states is regulated by APMCs established by state governments under the respective APMC Acts.  The APMCs provide infrastructure for marketing of agricultural produce, regulate sale of such produce and collect market fees from such sale, and regulate competition in agricultural marketing.  In 2017, the central government released the model Agricultural Produce and Livestock Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2017 to provide states with a template to enact new legislation and bring comprehensive market reforms in the agriculture sector.  The 2017 model Act aims to allow free competition, promote transparency, unify fragmented markets and facilitate flow of commodities, and encourage operation of multiple marketing channels.  In November 2019, the 15th Finance Commission (Chair: Mr N. K. Singh) in its report provided that states which enact and implement all features of this Model Act will be eligible for certain financial incentives.

What steps were taken by the central government in light of COVID-19?

On April 2, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare launched new features of the electronic-National Agriculture Market (e-NAM) platform to strengthen agriculture marketing by reducing the need of farmers to physically come to wholesale mandis for selling their harvested produce.  The e-NAM platform provides for contactless remote bidding and mobile-based any time payment for which traders do not need to either visit mandis or banks.  This helps in ensuring social distancing and safety in the APMC markets to prevent the spread of COVID-19.  

On April 4, 2020, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare issued an advisory to states for limiting the regulation under their APMC Acts.  The advisory called for facilitating direct marketing of agricultural produce, enabling direct purchase of the produce from farmers, farmer producer organisations, cooperatives by bulk buyers, big retailers, and processors. 

On May 15, 2020 the Union Finance Minister announced certain reforms for the agriculture sector of the country to reduce the impact of COVID-19 and the lockdown.  Some of the major reforms include: (i) formulating a central law to ensure adequate choices to farmers to sell agricultural produce at attractive prices, barrier free inter-state trade, and framework for e-trading of agricultural produce, (ii) amending the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to enable better price realisation for agricultural produce such as all cereals, pulses, oilseeds, onions, and potatoes, and (iii) creating a facilitative legal framework for contract farming, to enable farmers to engage directly with processors, large retailers, and exporters.

Which states have made changes to agriculture marketing laws?

The Uttar Pradesh Cabinet has approved an ordinance, and Madhya PradeshGujarat, and Karnataka have promulgated ordinances, to relax regulatory aspects of their APMC laws.  These Ordinances are summarised below:

Madhya Pradesh 

On May 1, 2020, the Madhya Pradesh government promulgated the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020.  The Ordinance amends the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Act, 1972.  The 1972 Act regulates the establishment of an agricultural market and marketing of notified agricultural produce.  The following amendments have been made under the Ordinance:

  • Market yards:   The 1972 Act provides that in every market area, there should be a market yard, with one or more sub-market yards, for conducting all marketing activities such as assembling, grading, storage, sale, and purchase of the produce.  The Ordinance removes this provision and specifies that in the state, there may be: (i) a principal market yard and sub-market yard managed by the APMC, (ii) a private market yard managed by a person holding a license (granted by the Director of Agriculture Marketing), and (iii) electronic trading platforms (where trading of notified produce is done electronically through internet).  

  • Director of Agricultural Marketing: The Ordinance provides for the appointment of the Director of Agricultural Marketing by the state government.  The Director will be responsible for regulating: (i) trading and connected activities for the notified agricultural produce, (ii) private market yards, and (iii) electronic trading platforms.   He may also grant licenses for these activities.  

  • Market fee: The Ordinance also provides that market fee for trading under licenses granted by the Director of Agricultural Marketing will be levied as prescribed by the state government.

Gujarat

On May 6, 2020, the Gujarat government promulgated the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020.  The Ordinance amends the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963.  The amended Act is called the Gujarat Agricultural Produce and Livestock Marketing (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 1963.  Key amendments made under the Ordinance are as follows:

  • Regulation of livestock market:   The Ordinance brings the regulation of marketing of livestock such as cow, buffalo, bullock, bull, and fish under the ambit of this Act. 

  • Unified market area:   The Ordinance provides that the state government may declare the whole state as one unified market area through a notification.  This can be done with the purpose of regulation of marketing of notified agricultural produce.

  • Unified single licence:  The Ordinance provides for the grant of a single unified trading license.  The license will be valid across the state in any market area.  Existing trade licenses must be converted into the single unified licenses within six months from the date of commencement of the Ordinance.  

  • Markets for conducting trading:  The Ordinance allows the state government to notify any place in the market area as the principal market yard, sub-market yard, market sub-yard, or farmer consumer market yard for the regulation of marketing of notified agricultural produce.  Certain places in the market area can also be declared a private market yard, a private market sub-yard, or a private farmer-consumer market yard.  The Ordinance adds that the notified agricultural produce may also be sold at other places to a licence holder, if especially permitted by a market committee.

  • Market sub-yards:   The Ordinance provides that a market area should have market-sub yards (warehouse, storage towers, cold storage enclosure buildings or such other structure or place or locality).  Further, it also provides that the owner of a warehouse, silo, cold storage or such other structure or place notified as market sub-yard, may collect a market fee on notified agricultural produce.  He may also collect user charge on de-notified agricultural produce transacted at the market sub-yard.  The rate of the fees should not exceed the rates notified by the state government.  However, no market fee shall be collected from farmers.

  • E-trading:  The Ordinance provides for the establishment and promotion of electronic trading (e-trading) platforms.  It provides that a license granted by the Director of Agricultural Marketing is necessary to establish an e-trading platform.   Further, it provides that applications on the e-trading platform shall be inter-operable with other e-platforms as per specifications and standards laid down by the Director.  This has been done to evolve a unified National Agricultural Market and integrate various e-platforms.

Karnataka

On May 16, the Karnataka government promulgated the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020.  The Ordinance amends the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966.  The 1966 Act regulates the buying and selling and the establishment of markets for agricultural produce throughout the state.  Key amendments made under the Ordinance are as follows:

  • Markets for agricultural produce:  The 1966 Act provides that no place except the market yard, market sub-yard, sub-market yard, private market yard, or farmer - consumer market yard shall be used for the trade of notified agricultural produce.  The Ordinance substitutes this to provide that the market committee shall regulate the marketing of notified agricultural produce in the market yards, market sub-yards and submarket yards.  Thus, the Act no longer bars any place for the trade of notified agricultural produce.

  • Penalty:  The 1966 Act provides that whoever uses any place for purchase or sale of notified agricultural produce can be punished with imprisonment of up to six months, or a fine of up to Rs 5,000, or both.  The Ordinance removes this penalty provision from the Act.

Uttar Pradesh

On May 6, the Uttar Pradesh Cabinet approved the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020.  According to the state’s press release, the Uttar Pradesh government has decided to remove 46 fruits and vegetables from the ambit of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Act, 1964.   The 1964 Act provides for the regulation of sale and purchase of notified agricultural produce and for the establishment and control of agricultural markets in Uttar Pradesh.  

  • Certain fruits and vegetables exempted from the provisions of the Act:  These fruits and vegetables include mango, apple, carrot, banana, and ladies’ finger.  The proposed amendment aims to facilitate the purchase of these products directly from farmers from their farms.  Farmers will be allowed to sell these products at the APMC mandis as well, where they will not be charged the mandi fee.  Only the user charge will be levied as prescribed by the state government.   As per the state government, this will entail a loss of revenue of approximately Rs 125 crore per year to the APMCs.

  • License:   Specific licenses can be procured to carry on trade at places other than APMC markets.  This will encourage the treatment of warehouses, silos, and cold storages as mandis.  The owners or managers of such establishments can charge the user fee for managing the mandi.   Further, unified license can be used to trade at village level.